I hate having to waste my time responding to david palmer
he doesn’t declare his superstitious baggage. I try very hard not to be superstitious at all.

david is one of those creepy christians like kevin andrews that are
presuming to know what is “good” for me . bah & humbug .

when I decide my time to die has come I will tell david I am breaking the 4th commandment ( keep the sabbath ) . I will then expect david’s sky fairy to “put me to death”.
however I do ask for a little mercy : if I am to be stoned , can big stones be used

it is difficult to respond to david’s “ arguments “ except with ridicule and contempt

david s. ( yes , I am ashamed of my “christian” name )

What a pompous, self righteous and ignorant item from Mr Palmer. I assume he knows Mrs Palmer well. And her 5 children.

Has he ever suffered depression? Obviously not as it's hell on earth and to have someone like this one handed activity type tell you it's not your right to die is, well, enough to make you suicidal.

He says there is no historical precedent and yet then tells us all about how it fails in Holland. He is very narrow even then as it was legal in the NT and people did use the law and die voluntarily then until Howard, the man who was dead from the neck down, stopped it. He obviously wanted more tax payers to fleece.

If there is any truth to what he says about Holland then the answer is obvious is it not? Learn and adjust.

The most telling point to say it is everyone's right to die is that people are doing it every day regardless. All this sort of moron achieves is to force them into a situation where they may fail and end up either crippled or mentally disabled. As well as in pain for the rest of their time.

Frankly Palmer, get a life, or in your case, take you own and leave the rest of us alone. Or are you pushing for jail for those who fail? The good old days.

Depression is no reason. There is NO CURE for depression you idiot. NONE. Just relief for periods until it bangs you again.

I find the responses to this piece very heartening.

Especially the low calibre of reasoning behind the posts opposing voluntary euthanasia. Really, without the 'god' angle, you've got no good reasons to force people to endure such pain.
What's more, the 'god' angle does not apply to people who do not believe in your god. What's more, all but the most fanatical Christians agree you can't force god on anyone therefore society must respect that many, and I suspect most, people aren't particularly religious (I'm not saying a majority are atheists or agnostics, I'm saying a majority are only nominally religious).

Actually, I can come up with some good arguments to deny voluntary euthanasia, but I sure haven't seen any of them here. However, on further consideration of those points, I can't see any of them being sufficient justification for a blanket ban.

So, I'll leave you with this article in favour of voluntary euthanasia. It's more in jest, though the reasoning behind it is far more sound, and somehow it feels far more honest than the tenuous arguments put forward in this piece.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922969-23375,00.html

Thanks Gus and Celivia for exposing the extraordinary lies the author sprouts.

It is foolish to refer to the Netherlands to support an argument AGAINST euthanasia.

Depression is excluded as a reason for requesting assisted death.

To appease the religious amongst us I’ve referred to recent information from a source that is opposed to euthanasia, so does not put a favourable light on this; the Catholic Church. The Church is up in arms at the continuing rise in numbers of deaths through euthanasia: 2003 there were 1815 deaths, 2004 there were 1886, and 2005 there were 1933 deaths.
http://www.katholieknederland.nl/actualiteit/2006/detail_objectID580596_FJaar2006.html

Sorry, it is in Dutch, but you should be able to read the numbers.

These are verified numbers. A very, very small number of people eventually avail themselves of ending their lives like this. Of all the people who request euthanasia not all will fulfil all the criteria and of those who do only a very, very small number do eventually die with assistance.

Legal voluntary euthanasia permits those who have a terminal illness, to openly discuss their death, it allows those who know they do not have long to live to actually live the life they have left. By preparing and being the main decision maker in one owns death takes away the anxiety of no relief from possible unbearable situations.

At present in Australia, it is your physician who decides when and by how much to crank up your morphine. This has two serious implications: 1.your doctor’s personal moral philosophy plays a large part in determining your death, not yours.
2. this generally is a gradual thing, though you know you are dying you may not have said all you wanted to say to those important to you before you were rendered semi-conscious.

This was a very sloppy counter argument to voluntary euthanasia.

http://www.nvve.nl/nvve2/home.asp?pagkey=71070 is another interesting link for Dutch speakers.

Lastly: it is not mandatory to avail yourself of this law if your personal beliefs do not allow it.

I have really enjoyed *almost* everyone’s very clever comments. Even though many may sound harsh in David's eyes, it's far harsher to interfere with people's choice about their own life.

I’d find it interesting to hear what David Palmer thinks about our arguments in favour of euthanasia.

Thank you for the links, Yvonne, I like the NVVE and have been receiving their newsletters for some time.

Why don’t Christians who are concerned about euthanasia direct their frustration, energy and funding in a more positive way rather than trying to constantly block people’s free choice?
I’d be far less critical of Christians if they, for example, funded more scientific/medical research, or go on a mission to pester politicians for a better health care system and palliative care so that at least patients would have a bigger chance of healing or have more efficient alternatives at their disposal.

There will always be people who want and need help to end their life prematurely, but the more inviting the other options are, the more freely they are able to choose.

BTW David, did you know that many euthanasia requests are disapproved? Only when there is no positive outlook for the patient, euthanasia is a way out.

And surprisingly, only a minority of the patients that are approved actually go through with it- for them it is a great peace of mind to be able to have it available as a last option- they hang in there knowing that if they cannot cope any longer, it takes only a phonecall to end it all.
Like my aunt, they live day-by-day, and don’t have to worry and stress about their situation for the next day.

They don’t have to be constantly scared of a cruel death, of not knowing how painful and scarey the end is going to be for them.

Hear, hear Celivia, I don't get it either.

Euthanasia is something that happens when you are dying, when your quality of life has been reduced to unbearable suffering, it saves a few weeks or months of agony.

I think that when you have a terminal disease there comes a point where you give in, you make your peace with your family and world and then just wait for it to happen.

A third of all deaths are sudden and some people will fight to the end. But I imagine that when you're old and lived your life that is how it goes.

But why extend the waiting when it is so painful. That is what I don't get.

When judge Drion proposed his pill 15 odd years ago the concept was enthusiastically received by much of the senior community.

I too David, would like to read your thoughts.